[erlang-questions] Documentation error in Diameter AVP specification?

[Anders Svensson]

R15B diameterc also has a major advantage in that it emits useful
error messages that point at the offending input line. Earlier
versions just crashed and it could be quite difficult to figure out
why.

/Anders, Erlang/OTP Ericsson


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jeroen Koops <koops.j@REDACTED> wrote:
> Yes, it's R14B03 -- so for now I'll just do nothing, move to R15, or wait
> for RFC3588bis to become current. Thanks all!
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Anders Svensson <anders.otp@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>>
>> Is this with an R14 diameterc? R15B diameterc should accept both
>> "Diameter-Header" and "Diameter Header".
>>
>> RFC 3588 is inconsistent in its usage, specifying "Diameter-Header" in
>> the ABNF but "Diameter Header" in all of its command definitions. The
>> current draft RFC fixes this.
>>
>> /Anders, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
>>
>>
>>
>> RFC 3588 uses the former in its ABNF but the latter in all of its
>> command definitions
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jeroen Koops <koops.j@REDACTED> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In the documentation for the Diameter dict-file format,
>> > at http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/diameter_dict.html, it says, under the
>> > @messages tag:
>> >
>> >> Defines the messages of the application. The section content consists
>> >> of
>> >> definitions of the form specified in
>> >> section 3.2 of RFC 3588, "Command Code ABNF specification".
>> >
>> > The examples given show a diameter specified as follows: < Diameter
>> > Header:
>> > 287, REQ, PXY >
>> >
>> > However, RFC3588 specifies that a header should be specified as:
>> >
>> >     header = "<" Diameter-Header:" command-id [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit]
>> > [application-id]">"
>> >
>> > Note the dash in Diameter-Header. Using a dash in a .dia file causes an
>> > error when compiling the file with diameterc, so it seems that diameterc
>> > does not completely follow RFC3588.
>> >
>> > Am I misunderstanding something here, or is this a bug for which I can
>> > submit a patch? The best patch I can think of is to modify diameterc in
>> > such
>> > a way that both 'Diameter-Header' and 'Diameter Header' are accepted,
>> > with a
>> > note in the document saying that 'Diameter Header' is accepted but
>> > deprecated. An easier patch would jus add a note to the documentation
>> > pointing out the difference with the RFC.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeroen Koops
>> >
>> > M: koops.j@REDACTED
>> > T: +31-6-55590300
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > erlang-questions mailing list
>> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeroen Koops
>
> M: koops.j@REDACTED
> T: +31-6-55590300
>